Andrew Miller: Will my right hon. Friend agree to take a flexible approach to bids that come before him—pursuant to the observations by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew)—to ensure that both the supply chain and manufacturers obtain benefits from this scheme? Will he also, in the context of my constituency, ensure that there are no delays in developing the West Cheshire college, which will be an integral part of delivering the needs of the vehicle industry in my area?

John Denham: It is not just a matter of being flexible, because we have indicated our willingness to do that. The compact that we have with the sector skills council for the manufacturing sector makes the use of the money much more flexible. Our ideal, actually, is to create a situation where within an area such as his we can comprehensively address the whole sector—that is, the major lead manufacturer as well as the supply chain. Maintaining the supply chain is every bit as important at the moment as maintaining the main plant. That is what we are aiming to achieve.
	As for west Cheshire—I know that my hon. Friend is ambitious for his college—we have been looking to ensure that the training capacity is already in place to enable us to gear up training for the car industry in the way that he describes.

Si�n Simon: My hon. Friend is a tireless advocate of her constituency's educational institutions. Earlier, the Minister of State talked about Aimhigher, which builds exactly such links, and the academies programme is building similar links. Outstanding work is being done in not just the constituency of my hon. Friend, but all over the country.

David Heath: Another week without a debate on the economy in Government time. It is no good the Leader of the House asking the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives to use their Opposition days for a debate that ought to be held in Government time.
	We have called a debate on public spending because there seems to be a complete separation between the Prime Minister's mindset and reality. He keeps telling us that he is providing public money to fight the recession, but, as we heard earlier in Question Time, the reality is that all around the country colleges are being told that their anticipated capital spend simply will not happen. Will the Leader of the House encourage the Prime Minister actually to attend next Monday's debate in order actually to hear what is really happening? He seems to believe that he is the Mikado, and that because he has ordered something to be done, it has been done. It has not.
	While we are talking about the economy, can we deal with some of those who can least afford the difficulties at the moment: people who live in council homes? They are being saddled with enormous rent increases in many boroughs and council areas this year, simply because the Treasury has withdrawn 200 million from the council rent account, which means that rents are going up by anything up to 2,000 a year. Is that fair to some of the poorest people in this country?
	Can we have a debate, or at least a statement, on the worsening situation in Sri Lanka?
	Next week, finallyif it is not delayed againwe will have the Political Parties and Elections Bill. Has there been any progress in establishing the one-stop shop for the registration of members' interests to avoid the confusion that there is at the moment. The House asked for that to be done. What is happening about it?
	Lastly, last Tuesday we had a statement from the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. It was eagerly anticipated because the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) was speaking from the Conservative Front Bench. He spoke; he roared; he did not ask any questions. But had he asked any questions, there would not have been a Secretary of State on the Treasury Bench to respond. We had a report from the Business and Enterprise Committee, dated 25 November, that made a recommendation in that respect. The Government have not responded within the two-month period. Why not? When will they do so? When will the issue be moved to the Procedure Committee for a new Standing Order to deal with what is clearly a constitutional anomaly and what some would say is a constitutional enormity?

Harriet Harman: The hon. Gentleman started by saying that I had simply asked for the Opposition to bring forward debates on the economy. That is to misconstrue what I said. I want to make sure that, every week, there are debates and opportunities to scrutinise the Government's work. There is a rapid pace of change in the economy and, as it has been ever since Dick Whittington's day, the City of London is an important financial services centre. Therefore, a global financial services crisis inevitably affects the City. We are an outward-facing, trading nation and a global recession affects our economy in particular. We want to make sure that the House is able to focus on the rapid change that is happening internationally and how it is affecting our economy and can call the Government to account for the actions we are taking.
	The mindset of the Government and of the Prime Minister is to make absolutely sure that we are looking at what is happening and ahead to what will happen and taking the necessary action. The hon. Gentleman will understand that these measures take time to work through. We can work out the detail and announce them, but it takes time for them to work through and for their effect to be seen on the economy. That is why we can all help in our constituencies by making sure that businesses and families get the help they need.
	The hon. Gentleman talked about council rents. There will be an opportunity to debate that next Wednesday 4 February during debates on the local government finance reports. Last week, he asked for those to be separate debates and to be voted on separately. I can tell him that that will be the case.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about Sri Lanka, an issue of real and growing concern. I have spoken to Foreign Office Ministers, as I know the House will want an opportunity as soon as possible either to have an oral statement or a debate. The issue has been raised at Prime Minister's Question Time, but hon. Members want to take it further and I will certainly look for an opportunity so to do, possibly in a topical debate.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the registration of members' interests and the question of dual reporting. The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons has done a great of work on this. He tells me that the Select Committee is due to report on Monday and that there will be an opportunity to sort out dual reporting and have a single system of reporting, which will be brought on a motion on business on Monday 9 February.

Nicholas Soames: Will the Leader of the House-person [ Laughter . ]grant a debate in Government time to allow Ministers to ponder, during this Government-created debt bust and pause in house building, and to give further consideration to their frequent assertions that large housing developments will not take place unless there is a suitable social infrastructure in place to support them, quite outside the normal section 106 agreements? Will the Leader of the House ask her colleagues to look further at this because it results in necessary housing going ahead without the proper infrastructure to support it, to the great disadvantage of all our constituents?

Harriet Harman: There will be an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to raise the issue in next Wednesday's debate on local government finance. I am sure that he will be able to make further points there. We must make sure that wherever there are housing developments, there is suitable infrastructurewhether roads, schools or health servicesand that the planning system takes that into account. We are very much in favour of more housing being built as there is a need in this country, but it must be accompanied by the proper infrastructure. We certainly want to support the construction industry by bringing forward capital projects. Quite the opposite effect would occur if, at a time when the housing market is struggling, public sector capital infrastructure projects were delayed, so we will attempt to bring those forward.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to a Government-created recession. He will know that there is a slowing of growth in China. Was that caused by this Government? He knows that there is a recession in America, France, Germany, Canada and Spain. If he simply talks about a Government-created recession, he will reinforce in everyone's mind one of two things: either that the Opposition do not really know what is going on, or that they do know what is going on, but are more determined to make party-political points rather than to contribute to working together to help the country through this very difficult time.

Harriet Harman: I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he raises this matter in oral questions to Health Ministers on 10 February. Perhaps I can also take this opportunity to congratulate him on the work he does, not only in raising the issue of diabetes in the House, but his charitable work to make sure there is public awareness of it. This is a public health issue; better public health can lead to postponing, or preventing, the onset of diabetes. It is important that people get screening for early diagnosis and effective treatment. It is my understanding that my right hon. Friend discovered that he had diabetes when he was helping to promote screening in his own constituency and offered to take a blood test. I congratulate him on his work, and I say to him that the Government will back it up.

Harriet Harman: I know that many Members of the Scottish Parliament were concerned about the lack of investment in apprenticeships and training, and that many Labour MSPs voted against the budget on that basis. However, this is, as Mr. Speaker says, not a matter for this House.

Harriet Harman: No one can be in any doubt about the intensely high level of concern in this House about the humanitarian plight of people in Gazathat came out in the debate that we had in the past fortnight. Everyone wants to see not only an increase in the levels of Government humanitarian aid, which the Secretary of State for International Development has raised, but a recognition that the voluntary contribution is essential for humanitarian exercises, in addition to Government international pressure on the Israelis to make sure that that humanitarian aid gets through. Obviously, there has been nationwide dismay about this situation but, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, we need to step backwe should not step over the linefrom telling the BBC, which is independent, how it should make its editorial decisions. I see from the papers that it is reviewing the complaints that it has received about this, and a Westminster Hall debate has taken place on this issue. A statement will be made just after business questions by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, so provided digital is in the question, there might be an opportunity to ask him for an answer on this too.

Alistair Burt: I listened to the earlier exchanges about the decision of the ill-fated Learning and Skills Council to suspend its capital funding programme. May I add my voice to concerns about this, not least on behalf of Sharnbrook upper school and community college, which found that many months of negotiations with the Department for Children, Schools and Families, its local authority and the LSC had been undermined by that decision and that there was a consequent negative impact on its pupils? Was the Leader of the House disappointed that information on this came not from a statement from a Minister but through contact with Members of Parliament? Is she very disappointed that, again, this matter is not being debated by the Government in their time, but has to be brought up by the Opposition in order to pin the Government down about such an important capital freeze?

Harriet Harman: I take the point that hon. Members are saying that even if the Government cannot take a position, they feel free, on behalf of their constituents, to do so and therefore I should look to provide an opportunity to discuss this, possibly through a topical debate.

Andy Burnham: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the publication today of the interim Digital Britain report. Last October, together with the Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, I announced that Lord Carter of Barnes would undertake a comprehensive review of Britain's digital, communication and creative sectors and make recommendations to place the country in a position to prosper in the digital age.
	Today, the Government are publishing Lord Carter's interim findings. His report starts from the recognition that those sectors are not only important in their own rightthey are worth more than 52 billion a year, with 2 million to 3 million people directly employed by thembut fundamental to the way all businesses operate and how we all live our lives.
	Capable communications systems can help British businesses to become more efficient and productive, offering the potential to reduce travel. High-quality information and entertainment enhance our democracy and our quality of life and define our culture. In short, building a digital Britain is about securing a competitive, low-carbon, productive and creative economy in the next five to 10 years.
	It is worth reminding the House of Britain's traditional strength in these industries. The worldwide web was invented by British ingenuity. It was here that GSM was created and established as the global standard for first generation digital mobile communications. However, that strength is not just in distribution and systems. Our television, music, film, games, advertising and software industries are world-leading. The OECD estimates that the United Kingdom cultural and creative sector, at just under 6 per cent. of gross domestic product, is relatively more important than its equivalent in the United States, Canada, France and Australia. UNESCO considers the UK to be the world's biggest exporter of cultural goods, surpassing even the US.
	We cannot be complacent. The online age is rewriting the rules, changing the way that consumers access content and the old business models that have underpinned Britain's creative industries. The challenge now is how to build the networks and infrastructure that help businesses and consumers to get the most from the digital age and how to fund the quality content that has always been our hallmark.
	The Government's thinking has been shaped by a series of important reviews, including the Caio review on next generation broadband access; the work of the digital radio working group; the Byron review on children and new technology, which led to the establishment of the UK Council for Child Internet Safety; the Convergence Think Tank; the digital inclusion action plan; and the Creative Britain strategy.
	Digital Britain brings those strands of work together into a clear and comprehensive framework with five public policy ambitions at its heart. The first is too upgrade and modernise our digital networks: wired, wireless and broadcast; secondly, to secure a dynamic investment climate for British digital content, applications and services; thirdly, to secure a wide range of high-quality, UK-made public service content for UK citizens and consumers, underpinning a healthy democracy; fourthly, to ensure fair access for all and the ability for everyone to take part in the communications revolution; and fifthly, to develop the infrastructure, skills and take-up to enable widespread online delivery of public services.
	The interim report makes 22 recommendations to achieve those objectives and I will set out some of them for the House today. Britain must always be ready to benefit from the latest advances in technology, so we will establish a strategy group to assess measures to underpin existing market-led investment plans for next generation access networks. An umbrella body will also be set up to provide technical advice and support to local and community networks. To facilitate the move to next generation mobile services, we are specifying a wireless radio spectrum modernisation programme. In addition, the Government are committing to enabling digital audio broadcasting to be a primary distribution network for radio in the UK and will create a digital migration plan for radio. We will also consider how the digital TV switchover help scheme can contribute towards wider inclusion in digital services.
	We will only maintain our creative strength if we find new ways of paying for and sustaining creative content in the online age. We will therefore explore the potential for a new rights agency to be established and, following a consultation on how to tackle unlawful file sharing, we propose to legislate to require internet service providers to notify alleged significant infringers that their conduct is unlawful.
	Our third objectivehigh-quality, UK-made public service contentwill be achieved by sustaining public service broadcasting provision from the BBC and beyond. The report identifies newsat local, regional and national leveland children's programming as among the key priorities. The BBC as an enabling force is central to that objective. Strong and secure in its own future, it will work in partnership with others to deliver those objectives. We will also explore how we can establish a sustainable public service organisation that offers scale and reach alongside the BBC, building on the strength of Channel 4. We will consider options to ensure plurality of provision of news in the regions and the nations, and we are asking the Office of Fair Trading, together with Ofcom, to look at the local and regional media sector in the context of the media merger regime. We will consider the evolving relationship between independent producers and commissioners to ensure we have the appropriate rights holding arrangements for a multi-platform future.
	Our fourth objective of fairness and access is, of course, crucial to delivering the Government's policy of an inclusive society where new opportunities are available to all and nobody is left behind, so we are developing plans to move towards an historic universal service commitment for broadband and digital services to include options up to 2 megabits per second, building on the approach to postal services and telephones in centuries past. We will also ensure that public services online are designed for ease of use by the widest range of citizens.
	Lastly, to help people navigate this vast and changing world, the report makes recommendations to improve media literacy and, in particular, to give parents the information and tools necessary to protect children from harmful or inappropriate content.
	The Government have today set out an ambitious vision to ensure that Britain reaps the full economic and social benefits of the digital age. An intensive period of discussions with industry partners and others must now begin to turn the emerging conclusions into firm solutions. A final report will be presented to Parliament by the summer and I wish to thank Lord Carter for his work to date. In publishing the interim report today and making this statement to the House, we seek to invite members from both sides of the House to engage in the debate on the fundamental questions that will shape our country's economy and society in this century. I commend the statement to the House.

Jeremy Hunt: I thank the Secretary of State for 15 minutes' notice of his statement and a much more generous notice of the report, which we received in good time this morning. However, we were disappointed that yet again the contents were broadcast on the Today programme this morning, that they are in  The Daily Telegraph and  The Times and that there was even a briefing at No. 10 at 8 o'clock this morning to which the industry, including broadcasters, was invited. I respectfully suggest to the Secretary of State that if he is serious about cross-party collaboration on these issues, he should respect the role of Parliament in this matter as in every other.
	We welcome the interest that the Government have shown in our digital economy. All parties in the House are united in the desire to maximise the competitive strengths of our creative economy and the Government have obviously committed considerable resources to putting together the report. However, most people will be disappointed with it. The digital economy is vital for Britain because of our natural strengths in creating digital content, but, when it comes to the delivery of that content, we are lagging badly. We come 21st out of 30 for broadband speed, while 40 per cent. of our households do not have broadband at all and connections fell last year. On next generation broadband, the report itself concedes that we are lagging behind France, Germany, the US and Japan.
	The statement and the report were a chance to put things right, but instead the Governmentwho have been the best customer for the management consultancy industry in the history of Britainhave promised no new action but a total of eight new reports. This week, a woman in California gave birth to eight babies. Perhaps in homage to her, the Government have announced eight new reports. Although the world was surprised and delighted with the arrival of the octuplets, we have all become wearily familiar with the Government's continual substitution of reports for action.
	The report does mention action. The most critical question of all, namely how to stimulate investment in next generation broadband access, is dealt with under action 1. What is action 1? It is to
	establish a Government-led strategy group.
	So the most important action is not an action at all but the establishment of a strategy group. A Conservative Government will make it a major objective to ensure that more than half the population has access to next generation networks within five years. Do the Government accept that as an objective? Will they deliver it?
	The report says that the Government will
	work with...operators...to remove barriers to the development of a...wholesale market in access to ducts.
	If BT, which owns the ducts, does not co-operate, will the Government force BT to open them to other suppliers, as the Conservatives have pledged?
	Can the Secretary of State tell us who is in overall chargeLord Carter, the Business Secretary or the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport? Without clear leadership, the chance of delivering on such huge commitments is minuscule. So may we have a categoric assurance that there is no turf war going on between the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and Ofcom that prevents the Government showing the leadership that is so desperately needed?
	On universal service obligation for broadband, we welcome the long-delayed commitment to ensure that everyone has access. But who will pay for that? Expressing a sentiment is fine, but without a road map for delivery it is surely a totally empty promise. The Government say that the universal commitment should be for 2 megabits per second access. Given that the national average access speed is 3.6, is not the scale of the Government's ambitions pitifully low, simply saying that they want to ensure that the whole population has access to half the current average speed by 2012? Is there not a real risk that these changes will be superseded by technological changes before they are implemented?
	On digital radio, the report says:
	We are making a clear statement
	that DAB should be
	a primary distribution network.
	So how will that be funded? How will the Government ensure that DAB becomes available in people's cars? How will they ensure that the signal is strengthened in rural areas? Without those details, this report amounts to no more than an empty gesture.
	On copyright protectionan incredibly important issueinstead of a solution there is a proposal to set up a new quango, with a new tax on internet users. Why do we need another agency when Ofcom is already equipped and able to do that job? And why should legitimate internet users have to pay for the copyright infringement of transgressors?
	The Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), recently enraged the music industry by comparing illegal downloading to stealing bars of soap from hotels. Can the Secretary of State reassure the House that for the Government theft is theft, whether online or offline?
	On peer-to-peer file sharing, the report talks about consulting on legislation. So can the Secretary of State tell the House how internet service providers are supposed to identify illegally shared files, given what happened in France, where many users simply reacted by encrypting their files when the French Government introduced similar measures?
	On the review of the terms of trade, can the Secretary of State give clarity on timings, given that while a review is taking place investment in independent production will be very hard to sustain?
	Finally, on internet content, I notice that the Secretary of State's idea for cinema-style ratings for websites is not in the report. Has it been sidelined, perhaps by voices in Government more realistic about the ability of Government to control the internet?
	In October the Secretary of State said:
	Now is the time to move from...think tank phase to...delivery phase.
	So where is the delivery on next generation access? Another consultation. Where is the delivery on copyright protection? Another quango. Where is the delivery on peer-to-peer file sharing? Another consultation. Where is the delivery on the crisis facing local newspapers? Another review. Where is the delivery on community radio? Another consultation. Where is the delivery on terms of trade? Just another report. No concrete action, only eight woolly reviews.
	A Conservative Government made telecoms deregulation happen. They made the satellite and cable revolution happen. Now it looks as though the country will have to wait for another Conservative Government to end the curse of endless reviews, reports and consultations and lay the foundations for a truly competitive digital Britain.

Don Foster: I, too, thank the Secretary of State for advance copies of his statement and the interim Digital Britain report from his apparently converged Minister. As the hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) said, the report makes interesting but disappointing reading.
	The Secretary of State will be aware that the UK has slipped in the global league table of digital adoption, skills and use. Other countries make the development of a digital knowledge economy the centrepiece of their economic development, and we should be doing that, but we are not. This morning, the Prime Minister said that the report set out the scale of his ambition, but he should have added that it offers few, if any, decisions. Where are those decisions?
	Our public service broadcasters, from the peerless BBC to the multi-award winning Channel 4, are the envy of the world, but they face significant problems. They need help and advice, and they need decisions to be made now. Last September, the Secretary of State said that we would have those decisions today. He stated:
	early in the New Year, Ofcom can conclude its review and Government can announce decisions and the process to implement those decisions.
	What decisions has he made? He welcomes talks between the BBC and ITV, and between the BBC and Channel 4, and talks about the possible involvement of Channel 4 in BBC Worldwide, but he offers no decisions. Apparently, we must wait until the summerso much for urgency.
	Does the Secretary of State agree, at least, that there is now a window of opportunity for exciting thinking about using Worldwide? Does he agree that any links between Worldwide and other broadcasters, including Channel 4, must lead to added value for the BBC, as opposed to using Worldwide as a cash cow for others? Why has he not been ableas he should have beento rule out the top-slicing of money from the BBC? Why can we now not get on with making a return path part of the core requirement for digiboxes?
	As the hon. Member for South-West Surrey said, perhaps the biggest disappointment relates to the plans for rolling out universal high-speed broadband. The Government promised that they would bring forward capital investment to help us out of the recession. This is one of the key areas in which that could be done. If done properly, 600,000 new jobs could be created in this country, but what have we got? We have some vague commitment to a universal 2 megabits per second provision. As the hon. Gentleman said, average speeds are already 3.6 megabits per second, so why is there such little ambition and such a low target?
	Over the past few years, we have spent millions of pounds on the work of Ofcom, the Convergence Group, the Byron report, the Broadband Stakeholder Group, the Creative Britain group, the Caio review and much more. In return for all that work, we have today the announcement of a strategy group, an umbrella body, a delivery group, a rights agency, an exploratory review, a digital champion and an expert taskforce. Is this not further evidence of classic new Labourhigh on vision and spin, but short on substance?

Andy Burnham: I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman takes that approach. Let me deal with his central charge that this is disappointing, which echoes what the hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) said. What is disappointing about making a fairly historic commitment on universal broadband services? The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) might have just banked it, but that is a fairly major statement on the path towards a fully digital society. I wish he would not brush that away as though it were insignificant. It is significant that we say we want to move towards broadband for everyone, and it is a moment such as the development of telephone and postal services.
	Both hon. Gentlemen made international comparisons and suggested that we were being unduly cautious. Let me put on record something that contradicts what they said: France wants 512 kilobits per second and Finland wants 1 megabit per second. We are looking at options up to 2 megabits per second, so I hope they recognise that that represents greater ambition.
	The hon. Member for Bath said that decisions were promised on public service broadcasting. Let me tell him the decisions that the report makes clear. There will be public service broadcasting beyond the BBC. Have the Liberal Democrats or the Conservatives made such a commitment? [Hon. Members: Yes!] Well, I would be happy to hear it again today.
	We also make clear the specific elements of public service provision beyond the BBC that are important, which is an important decision. We say that local, regional and national news are important. We say that we need quality programming for children, especially the over-10s. We say that we need production in all parts of the country. We are setting this down, and the hon. Gentleman is leaping towards institutional solutions, but that is the next phase, which will be dealt with in the final report. He seems to misread the process. We are publishing the interim report precisely so that there can be a debate about the solutions before they are finalised.
	The hon. Gentleman acknowledged that there was rich potential in using BBC Worldwide both to enhance our position in the global market and to generate resources that can go back into British programming that can then be sold throughout the world. Of course, this is about solutions that work for everyone, which is why there is complexity and we are taking our time to get things right.
	The hon. Gentleman asked why we did not rule out top-slicing, but because we are committed to plural provision beyond the BBC, until solutions are found that would certainly deliver such provision, top-slicing must remain in the mix as a possible option. Although the option remains on the table, it is not, as I have said many times, the solution for which I would instinctively reach first. I have said today that a strong and secure BBC is one that can form a partnership and play an enabling role, and that is my preferred route.
	Lord Carter signals a significant change of policy on the return path for digital boxes by saying that that should be an option under the help scheme. We will explore that in more detail over the coming weeks.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about capital investment in broadband, but that is a matter of public-private partnership, not simply the Government funding it all, which is what seemed to be suggesting. We need to work intelligently with the communications sector and encourage the industry to work together to increase access to mobile and fixed networks. The Government will play a part in the debate in maximising the use of spectrum and ensuring that we have the right incentives for investment in this country. That is the intelligent approach, and I am sorry that the hon. Members for South-West Surrey and for Bath seem to misunderstand it.

Paul Goodman: In many ways, that is related to a point that has been made from the Conservative Benches, which is that feelings about this issue are not confined to members of any one ethnic or religious group.
	It is incontestable that what happens abroad can stir violent extremism at home. However, I wish to make it absolutely clear that violence abroad must not be allowed to spill on to the streets of Britain, from whatever quarter. People must take great care not accidentally to inflame what they rightly decry. We must all take great care when language involving holocaust comparisons is used, as the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) said a moment ago.
	It is inevitably asked how people who have experienced suffering can inflict suffering on others. We cannot avoid asking that question in relation to the Palestinians, and some Israelis acknowledge the force of it. However, there is a crucial difference in character between the horrors of waryes, even of wars in which war crimes are committedand the holocaust, which was the attempted extermination of an entire people on an industrial scale.
	I am sure that the overwhelming majority of those who recently took to the streets to protest peacefully about the carnage in Gaza will have been appalled by the anti-Semitic attacks that the CST has recorded. I hope that all would therefore concede that banners with stars of David alongside swastikas, and placards conflating Israel with Nazi Germany, are not only distasteful but risk inflaming anti-Semitism. I am sure that the House would agree that costumes portraying anti-Semitic stereotypesfor example the demonstrator who, in caricature, wore a mask with a hideously large nose and devoured an imitation bloody child, thereby suggestion the blood libel of Jews eating gentile childrenare nothing less than Jew-baiting.
	Today, as we say, never again, we must look forward with hope. Jews, Muslims, Christians and others up and down the country are working together to build mutual understanding, cohesion and peace, as the council for Christian and Muslim relations in my constituency does. Such groups are not silent, so it would not be accurate to call them part of the silent majority, but they are certainly part of the decent majority, and I hope that the whole House recognises what they do.
	The recent spike in anti-Semitic incidents can reasonably be expected to ease. None the less, I believe that we have been warned. Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, recently prayed for the destruction of the Jews
	down to the very last one.
	Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran's spiritual leader, spoke of the worldwide necessity of martyrdom in relation to Gaza. Mahmoud Zahhar, a Hamas leader, said that the killing of Jewish children is now legitimate all over the world.
	I close with three swift questions to the Under-Secretary, who, as ever, made a good speech today. First, will he give the House a categorical assurance that all police forces will record anti-Semitic crimes by the end of 2008-89, as promised Secondly, what is the Government's view of reports that the Muslim Council of Britain boycotted Holocaust memorial day this year? If they are true, will the Government's engagement policy in relation to the MCB change? If so, in what way? Thirdly, Ministers rightly met groups concerned about the conflict in Gaza and Israel recently. What steps is the Under-Secretary taking to ensure not only that Ministers meet groups, but that groups from different religious backgrounds and from none can meet each other in such circumstancesobviously, I am referring not only to Gaza and Israelto help reduce tensions?
	I have spoken briefly because many hon. Members wish to participate in the debate. We welcome it and, together, we say, Never again.

Andrew Robathan: May I first apologise to the Minister, as I have a long-standing doctor's appointment that will pull me away? I want to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) that I thought he made an extremely good and thoughtful speech. Unusually, I would like to compliment the Minister on his excellent and well balanced speech.
	I was brought up in the aftermath of world war two, as were many others. I was brought up with Exodus by Leon Urisnot only the book, but the film with its haunting theme music. When I was brought up, there was no question that one saw the issue of the holocaust as an integral part of the experience of world war two.
	During 1978, I went to the Bergen-Belsen camp, where it is true that the birds do not sing, which is most extraordinary. I was stationed in Germany, surrounded by old work camps, which again brought the issue home to me. Last February, I was lucky enough to be able to go to the Auschwitz with the HET.
	As a matter of interest, I was once vice-chairman of the all-party genocide group, which was founded by my friend and former colleague, Oona King, after a visit to Rwanda, where, of course, 2 million were killed. I have also been vice-chairman of the all-party Sudan group, and I note that Bashir may be charged with war crimes over what is alleged to be genocide in Darfur. I would welcome that. I say that not because my CV is terribly interesting, but because as a result of my age, I know a lot about the holocaust. I regret to say that as survivors increasingly die off, fewer people do.
	I wish to praise and devote the rest of my speech particularly to the work of the HET, which has rightly been much mentioned. I praise the HET not because it took me to Auschwitzalthough I am very grateful for thatbut because what it does is valuable and absolutely vital. The trips are very moving, particularly for those who do not know much about the history of the 20th century. The education it provides in schools and elsewhere is again vital.
	As people will know, the HET was founded by my former parliamentary neighbour, the noble Lord Janner, and Merlyn Rees in 1998. I welcome the Government money given over the past couple of yearsabout 1.5 million a year, I believeto assist the programme. That is valuable, although the visits took place long before the Government money arrived. I would like to say to every Member in the House that if they have not visited Auschwitz, they should do so. It is really valuable, and to take children there is hugely moving.

Andrew Robathan: I would indeed agree, which is why we need to inculcate tolerance of others in our society.
	Let me touch briefly on holocaust denial. To anyone who has looked at the facts, it is of course absolutely ridiculous, but as the HET says, it is best defeated by education and knowledge. David Irving, who we have heard about already, went to prison in Austria for some of his ridiculous utterances. Although I have no time for the man, I wonder whether sending such an idiotic figure to prison is the best answer.
	We also heard earlier about Richard Williamsona self-appointed bishop, I think, in a sect of the Roman Catholic Church, to which he has recently been readmitted. I watched him on YouTube shortly before I came here and found out that the gas chambers did not exist! He denies their existence. People like him are best defeated by education, knowledge, fact and ridicule. Frankly, I deprecate him completely. I believe that the holocaust denier who is currently in the highest position is President Ahmadinejad of Iran, and I find that much more worrying than the views of some silly man called Richard Williamson.
	Education is important. As survivors die off, there will be fewer people to tell others what happened to them and to move us all. That was brought home to me today by the obituary, in  The Daily Telegraph, of a Pole called Alec Maisner, who became an air vice-marshal in the Royal Air Force. He was not Jewish, but he was at Warsaw university in 1939, when Stalin took over Warsaw, and many of his fellow students were Jewish. He spent two years in Stalin's labour camps in Siberia before coming to Britain and becoming an air vice-marshal.
	I mention that not because it represents part of the holocaust that we commemorateof course, Stalin killed some 25 million people, probably his own people, for almost any reason, but not particularly for racist reasonsbut because as people like the air vice-marshal move on, we need to keep the knowledge alive. That is why I say again that I praise the work of the HET and hope that we will indeed learn the lessons of history.

Greg Hands: It has been a truly excellent debate, particularly the emotional and moving speech by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor). I was a co-sponsor of the early-day motion on Holocaust memorial day, which has attracted 176 signatures from Members of all parties. On Tuesday, Holocaust memorial day, I was delighted to welcome the Chief Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks to Lady Margaret school in my constituency for morning assembly. The school, always ranked as one of the country's best performing comprehensives, did us all extremely proud, led by the headmistress Sally Whyte.
	Two girls participated in the HET visit to Auschwitz in November with me, and we heard from both of them. Both Jennifer Gannaway and Lara Hawkins spoke, with short but moving accounts of their day in Auschwitz-Birkenau. Jennifer spoke of how the accumulated possessions of the victims, which are so clearly on display in Auschwitz, left an important impression on her:
	It decoded the 1.1 million killed at Auschwitz-Birkenau into 1.1 million individuals whose names we saw on the side of their suitcases.
	Lara described the overall chilling effect of the experience:
	The only way I can effectively describe to you my feelings after visiting Auschwitz-Birkenau was that I felt completely numb and hollow inside.
	Most importantly of all, we heard from a holocaust survivor, Mrs. Mala Tribich. I believe that she is one of only a couple of dozen holocaust survivors in the UK. The role that people such as Mrs. Tribich are playing and will continue to play in the coming years is a vital one; there is nothing more effective in learning about the holocaust than hearing it related at first hand.
	Mrs. Tribich brought many of us at the assembly close to tears as she described how, as a small child, she lost her parents and almost all her immediate family. She described arriving at Ravensbrueck and being processed on arrival. She had her clothes removed and her hair shaved. She said:
	When we emerged the other end, we could not recognise one another, we all looked the same. Our identities, our personalities, our very souls had been taken from us. We were dehumanised.
	Mrs Tribich also said something important:
	Whenever I speak to young people in schools I am invariably asked 'Do you hate the Germans?' Well, generally speaking it is not in my nature to hate, but more particularly I always state categorically that I do not attach any blame or hold any sort of grudge against the post war generations. Forgiveness of the perpetrators, however, is quite another matter.
	It is that on which I wanted to reflect briefly today; how we and other European countries are dealing with this horrible past.
	I have relatives in both Germany and Russia. I also have a huge number of Polish constituents and go to Poland fairly frequently. I wanted to compare how those countries are dealing with their pasts, as regards the holocaust and anti-Semitism. Before I go down that road, I do not want to give any impression of equivalence in the historical experience of those countries. The holocaust was very largely a Nazi German perpetration, the result of the evil mind of Adolf Hitler and the active participation of thousands of Germans and the passive contribution of millions. The Poles and Russians also had millions of victims at the hands of Nazi Germany.
	Germany has, in my view, done a pretty good job of dealing with its past. All post-war German Governments have recognised the special responsibility that Germany has towards both the worldwide Jewish community and Israel. Most Germans I know are shocked by modern-day anti-Semitism. German towns and cities do a pretty good job of preserving historic Jewish memory; the refurbished Oranienburger strasse synagogue in Berlin is testimony to that. The Dachau and Sachsenhausen concentration camps are well-preserved and attract a lot of visitors. There are still anti-Semitic incidents in Germany, but they are pretty rare, so I commend the work Germany has done over the past six decades. Poland is another interesting caseitself a tragic victim of Nazi-German crimesbut also with a difficult past in relation to its former Jewish citizens.
	As I have said, I visited Auschwitz in November. I have been there before; my previous visit was in February 1991, when Auschwitz was still arranged as it had been in the communist era, which had only just drawn to a close. What was striking about Auschwitz in 1991 was that the Jewish nature of the holocaust had been written out almost entirely. Of course, a lot of Poles were murdered in Auschwitz as well, but the impression given at that time was that there was no specifically Jewish aspect of the holocaust.
	I am delighted to be able to say that the arrangement of the camp museum has now been thoroughly changed for the better. Primacy is now given to the Jewish nature of the holocaust, but space is also given to the thousands of non-Jewish victimsincluding Poles, Roma and homosexualswho were targeted by the Nazis out of pure prejudice. There is, for example, a Catholic shrine to a Polish victim beatified by Pope John Paul II. That is an extremely sensitive area and more needs to be done, but may I commend the improvement over the past couple of decades in how Poland has dealt with the tragic history of its former Jewish citizens?
	The HET rightly includes during its Lessons from Auschwitz trip a visit to the excellent new museum of Jewish life in Oswiecim. At the museum, one gets the impression of how important Jewish life was in towns in Poland before 1939. The same is true of Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, which shows the importance of Jewish life across central and eastern Europe in the years prior to the holocaust.
	Finally, let me say a little about Russia. I do not have enough time to go into the details of this, but I think Russia needs to do more to combat anti-Semitism. Partly, this is a hangover from Soviet times, when, due to foreign policy reasons, anti-Semitism was disgracefully encouraged on political grounds. I saw that in my work in the late 1980s, when I was active in the Soviet Jewry movement on behalf of refuseniks and the student and academic campaign for Soviet Jewry. Anti-Semitism was very much part of the official ideology of the Soviet Union. Therefore, I think Russia would do very well to learn from some of the historical experience of Germany and Poland since 1945.
	I commend the work of the HET. Some 64 years after the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau, it is a challenging role for it to keep learning from that terrible and unique historical experience. It does its job well, and long may that continue.

Sadiq Khan: I am grateful to all the hon. Members who have spoken for their wise and insightful contributions to this debate. I expected nothing less, but it was gratifying to hear Members on both sides of the House agreeing on the importance of keeping alive the memory of the holocaust.
	It is worth putting on record the big turnout in the Chamber today. Some have had the chance to speak and others have intervened, but many more have sat and listened to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Anne Snelgrove) asked whether this should be an annual event. In my last three and a half years in this place, I have discovered that it operates on convention according to custom and practice. Given that the biggest two topical debates that we have had have been those on this issue, today and last year, I have little doubt that it will become a convention that we have such a debate in the week of 27 January every year.
	In the context of such a profound debate and in the time available, it is hard to respond to all the important points that have been made, so I shall confine myself to some that resonated especially strongly with me. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) made an outstanding speech in which he raised three specific questions. First, he asked when police services would start recording anti-Semitic incidents. I am pleased to tell him that I dealt with the Government's response to the report published by the all-party group on anti-Semitism, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), which recommended that change. We expect all police services to be able to record anti-Semitic incidents by April 2009 and I thank the hon. Gentleman for the vigour with which he has pursued that issue. The pressure that he has brought to bear will ensure that it happens by that deadline.
	The second issue that the hon. Gentleman raised was the reports in the press of the alleged boycotts of Holocaust memorial day. He would expect nothing less than for me to say that, first, I will not comment on reports in the press, and secondly, I have received no indication from the group that it has boycotted the event, and nor am I aware of ministerial colleagues being thus informed.
	The third point was about the engagement with groups, aside from the excellent engagement that Ministers have hadI do not mean that in a self-congratulatory, backslapping waywith key stakeholders in the past few weeks. That raises the interesting point of the inter-faith dialogue that needs to take place. Much such work is taking place, including the Inter Faith Network, the Government funding of regional faith forums and the Faith in Action grant programmes. We are looking at other ways in which Muslim-Jewish dialogue can take place in forums such as the Muslim Jewish Forum and the Coexistence Trust, which have a huge role to play. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will work with me to ensure that more work is done in that area.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon made an excellent speech, the key point of which was, Never again. However, to bring it forward to what is happening now with regard to standing up to hatred, I pay tribute to the work that she is doing locally with young people.
	The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) made an excellent and moving speech, bringing forward his personal experience through his parents along with contemporary examples of genocide, which I thought was really important, especially as we move forward.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks) talked about learning lessons from history and taking on those who propagate discriminatory views. That is very important, especially in the current climate.
	The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) gave very good reasons why he could not stay until the end of the debate. I was nervous when he complimented me and I glanced over at my Whip when he did so. I am even more nervous now when I pay tribute to him for his contribution. It was an excellent speech. I never thought that I would find an occasion to say something nice about himhe is a man who does not carry himself in a way that garners complimentsbut he talked about his age and experience, and his experience was a unique one from which we must learn. He talked about visiting Auschwitz and Birkenau and the impact that that it had on him and the two children. Like many colleagues, I visited Auschwitz and Birkenau last year, with two children sent from two schoolsGraveney school and Ernest Bevin college. It had a deep impact on me. It was moving, scary, traumatic and shocking.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) made a brilliant speech, in which she gave a moving account of a similar visit. She brought forward the relevance of the role that footballers have to play in 2009 as role models in striking against racism.
	The hon. Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands) made a great speech, too. He talked about his early-day motion, which was signed by more than 136 MPs. The Chief Rabbi is a great man, and I am really pleased that the hon. Gentleman got the Chief Rabbi to go to a school in his patch. He talked about the impact of the trip on his young children, but, more importantly in the context of a wider audience outside the UK, about the roles that Germany, Poland and Russia have been playing and the differences in how they deal with the matter.
	The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Scott), who has become a friend of mine in the Public Bill Committee on the Business Rates Supplement Bill, made an excellent speech. Over the past three or four weeks, he and I have discussed with anxiety and concern how our respective communities were dealing with the incidents locally and domestically. He made an excellent speech about what has happened in his community and the huge amount of inter-faith work that is going on in his community.
	A key role of the day is education. The Holocaust Educational Trust is doing invaluable work, as is the Holocaust Centre in Nottinghamshire. The Holocaust Educational Trust today announced a new programme to teach primary school children about the lessons of the holocaust.
	The holocaust is not a Jewish problem. Nor is it a problem of Roma Gypsies, or Sinti, or of any of the other victims. Nor are the genocides in Darfur, Bosnia, Rwanda or Cambodia problems that belong to their victims. All religions and cultures need to be part of Holocaust memorial day. I was reminded that these problems face us all. Together, we can face up to such problems. Together, we can show solidarity and courage. I commend the House for the way in which we have conducted ourselves this afternoon. It is a tribute to how seriously we take the issue.
	 One and a half hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings, the motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 24A).

Andrew Murrison: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Heaven loves a trier, and I got further than I thought that I might.
	Given the statement of 11 December, the Minister's remarks today, and the fact that defence will not feature in the Government's economic stimulus, the men and women of our armed forces will be awaiting the conclusion of the Gray review and the Ministry of Defence's current planning round in March with trepidation.
	I should like to turn to the subject of combat stress. On 12 January, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) said that he was shocked and surprised that I had not understood what his Government had been doing for veterans with combat stress. I pay tribute to everything that has been done for people with post-traumatic stress disorder, but the Minister's apparent complacency shocked and surprised me. What did not surprise me so much was the British Medical Association's briefing note that was circulated in advance of today's debate, which featured combat stress prominently. The charity, Combat Stress, has rightly pointed out that the Minister's rebuttal relied on the research programme run by King's college, London. The work of Professor Wessely is very important, but the Minister should know that it is a long-term population study, and that it does not necessarily reflect the scale of mental distress sustained on intense operations. The Defence Analytical Services Agency, in its explanatory notes to the data on which I think the Minister was relying on 12 January, sounds the same cautionary note.
	I have two requests for the Minister that touch on mental health. First, will he look at the burden of proof and the time limit for claims under the armed forces compensation scheme? Unlike in the war pensions scheme, the burden of proof lies with the claimant, and claims are timed out after five years. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) rightly raised that point earlier. The Minister will understand that mental illness is often far more difficult to relate to a specific insult than physical injury, and that it can manifest itself many years after the provoking incident. It seems to me that the occupationally mentally ill will be relatively disadvantaged by the new arrangements, and I am sure that that is not the Minister's intention.

Andrew Murrison: I think that there is an element of confusion between post-operational tour leave and in-tour rest and recuperation. In that exchange of correspondence, we mostly debated in-tour rest and recuperation, and I think that the Chief of the Defence Staff was referring largely to that in his public remarks. I am sorry if the Chief of the Defence Staff does not speak privately to the Minister about his concerns and prefers to put his comments in the public domain, but he said what he said, and we happen to agree with him. While I absolutely accept that we do not live in an ideal world, overstretch is a reality, and I am afraid that that is a symptom of it.
	There is a general feeling among members of the armed forces that the Government are not necessarily always on their side. That was picked up by our military covenant commission. The creation of the post of Director of Service Prosecutions and the appointment of a candidate with no obvious military experience and unknown sympathies did not help to deal with that perception, and I hope the Minister will accept that perception is very important indeed.
	The Director of Service Prosecutions was hired last year and will assume his full duties in the autumn. We have discussed that delay in Committee, but perhaps the Minister will tell the House why there has been such a delay and what Mr. Houlder has been doing with his time. Hopefully he has been acquainting himself with the Army, Navy and Air Force, and attending to his single service duties.
	Over Christmas, separate bilateral status of forces agreements were signed by Baghdad and the United States, the United Kingdom and NATO. A further SOFA with Australia was refused by Canberra. We have it on the very best authority that the NATO and US SOFAs are remarkably similar and give better protection to troops, including the 15 UK troops operating as part of the small NATO contingent in Iraq, than the UK SOFA. The message received by our men and women is that their Government are less exercised about them than the US or, indeed, NATO.
	Ministers must act to ensure that our military does not suffer from the pervasive idea that personnel operating in the most difficult circumstances are backed by the Government only in so far as they provide a politically obliging backdrop. When things get tough, what are our people to think if Ministers' first instinct is publicly to blame officers in the field, who traditionally cannot answer back? Nobody should be in any doubt about the damage that that sort of thing does to the morale of our fighting forces and I sincerely hope that lessons have been learned.
	I recognise the national recognition study, in so far as it suggests the Government understand the need to inculcate the armed forces into the public imagination. The military covenant commission considered that in some depth and reflected the fact that the most important citizens as far as forming opinions are concerned are those currently at school. I wholeheartedly support the involvement of our armed forces in schools, as the Defence Committee appears to have done in its July 2008 report. I utterly condemn the suggestion by some teachers' representativeshowever veiledthat soldiers in schools are somehow sinister. The suggestion that these laudable public servants and first-rate role models should not be welcomed on to publicly owned and run premises is frankly obscene. It is no good Ministers singing the praises of the troops on the one hand and failing to condemn the prejudices of the left on the other.
	In that spirit, I hope that the Government will wish to emulate the UK GI Bill unveiled by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) in September, which draws from the troops to teachers experience in the States. It addresses two needs, namely the need to facilitate the employment of people leaving the armed forces and the need for positive role models to whom children will relate. The Minister will know that I have in the past decried the disappearance of school visits teams in favour of the e-learning tool Defence Dynamics. In my view, interacting with an e-learning tool is no substitute for interacting with real people. What review has the Minister undertaken of the e-learning tool, which had its first anniversary in September? Have the overwhelming majority of packages been left to gather e-dust?
	As the Minister suggested, nothing is more important to service families than the education of their children, yet authorities that have to cater for substantial numbers of service children find they are out of pocket because of the cost drivers that they bring. My own authority, Wiltshire, does the best it can to smooth that, but it is a challenge.

Linda Gilroy: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I take note of your advice.
	I want to pay tribute to the men and womenand to the families of those men and womenwho have been serving in Helmand province in very large numbers since last September under the leadership of Plymouth-based 3 Commando Brigade and Brigadier Gordon Messenger. It is very importantthis is something that we certainly share with those of us who stay for these debatesthat the general public and some of our colleagues should understand why British forces are in Afghanistan and see the connection between security abroad and security at home.
	That has never been more important than in this year, with the upcoming elections in Afghanistan. Recently, there was an 18-day assault on the Taliban by 3 Commando brigade in Operation Red Dagger. I commend, as I have so often done in the past, the reporting in our local newspaper by its defence correspondent, Tristan Nichols, who was embedded with 29 Commando and 42 Commando during the preparations for that remarkable operation. Red Dagger was named after the Plymouth-based 3 Commando brigade's shoulder flashes and helped to restore security in Lashkar Gah, the capital of Helmand province. Four vital insurgent bases were captured, meaning that ordinary Afghans can get on with their everyday lives and register for the presidential elections later this year. Brigadier Messenger said:
	This was a very successful operation that demonstrated the ability of the Task Force to surprise, overmatch, manoeuvre and influence over a huge area. Whilst our efforts have made a significant contribution to the overall Nad E'Ali security plan, it has not been without sacrifice, and we will forever remember the contribution of those who died.
	The British forces were standing shoulder to shoulder with Afghan colleagues and working to provide enduring security so that Governor Mangal can spread his governance across Helmand. They were also working, as we so often forget, with international forces. Danish and Estonian troops fought alongside the British and the Afghan national security forces. They fought in driving rain, slept in mud and were under constant risk of attack by an enemy who knew the ground. As they pushed forward, they cleared compounds and drove the Taliban before them.
	Modern weapons were much in evidence, but so were more traditional methods. Troops carried lightweight ladders to scale the walls of enemy compounds, while the Black Knights of Kilo Company at one stage found themselves completely surrounded in a terrifying firefight outside the town of Zarghun Kalay. The discovery of a tonne of narcotics, including 400 kg of opium with a street value of 2 million, showed how the Taliban are funded by the drugs trade. Lieutenant Colonel Charlie Stickland, commanding officer of 42 Commando Group Royal Marines, said:
	The next step we need to make is to find out who the elders are and start our influence in terms of why we're here and what we're seeking to do over the coming months.
	I was fortunate enough to go on an armed forces parliamentary scheme visit to Afghanistan just before this operation, and it was a rare chance to try to find answers to some of the questions that I and my constituents have asked about what the men and women from Plymouth who are deployed out there are doing on our behalf, how they feel about it, and how their kit and equipment are serving them and standing up to the harsh treatment that it gets in the high-tempo operations and different terrain and climate. I wanted to see for myself the medical services and find out whether they were as good as our Defence Committee report suggested last year. I had many other questions too numerous to mention.
	We spent our first day in Camp Bastion receiving some excellent briefings from Colonel Andy Maynard, who is Op Herrick 9's chief in charge of logistics. We also heard from Lieutenant Colonel Colin McClean who is in charge of equipment support and gave us a really good overview of the equipment at their disposal for force protection and projection. We got an idea of how that equipment was used, how it gets there and how it is kept in working order. People often make efforts way over the odds to keep it in use. Further detail was spelt out in other briefings. We had lots of chances to see and chat with the people delivering some of it, from Post Office workers and those dealing with the e-blueys to engineers keeping the planes, helicopters and vehicles maintained, and we found out information from how the very good food gets on the tables in the canteen to how the pay and admin issues are dealt with.
	A highlight of the visit had to be, of course, the visit to joint force medical group and R2E hospital with Wing Commander Roger Thompson. There are some 15 Plymouth medical personnel operating in Camp Bastion and a similar number elsewhere, including on the forward operating bases.
	Another highlight was undoubtedly the visit to 42 Commando Royal Marines HQ and to Camp Roberts. We talked with Lieutenant Colonel Charlie Stickland, who spoke with pace, passion and clarity about the recent ops, the role of his marines and the preparations that they were making for further operations. It was also good to see Lieutenant Colonel Neil Wilson and 29 Commando Regiment alongside 42.
	After nearly 40 years of experience in the battleground of politics, I take my hat off the young men, often in their early 20s, who can flex to the physical exploits of supermen, for which they are all so well known, and within very short order, take tea with the mullahs, discussing an amazing range of political, social and economic issues in a way that understands and is sensitive to Afghan culture. Stunning and awesome were words that I heard my colleagues use after our visit to Camp Roberts, where we learned more of how that was done through practical demonstration and kit and equipment displays.
	People seem appreciative of how the urgent operational requirement process has delivered better kit and equipment, with the Plymouth-manufactured Jackal being particularly welcome. The marines and commandos had a lot to say about how kit and equipment could be better still. They are standing up to some of the world's worst and most vicious bullies on our behalf and they certainly deserve to be taken note of when they raise issues about how these things can be done better and how kit and equipment can be designed to work better together.
	I was very pleased to get a letter responding to the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Alison Seabeck) and I put to the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), after we returned from that visit. We received a very detailed response about how attention is being paid to most of those points. I shall read it very closely, because I know that when the troops return from deployment they will challenge me to say whether the issues that they raised with us in the heat of deployment are being taken seriously. I look forward to continuing those conversations not through questions on the Order Paper but through detailed discussions with the Minister.
	The Afghan army is building up steadily. We met and talked to some of the Omletsthe military liaison and training officers from the UK and other international security assistance force forces. We did not manage to visit Camp Shobarak, and I suspect that it will be quite a long time before the Afghan army can act to provide security in the challenging circumstances in that part of Afghanistan, particularly in Helmand, but it is good to see and hear that the work to achieve that is under way.
	I know from Plymouth Herald reports and the work that I do on the Select Committee on Defence that the insurgency by the coalition of old and new Taliban and al-Qaeda terrorists has changed and is increasingly dangerous and challenging. There is an unholy mix of the original religious zealots with narco and other criminals. Some use the Taliban and al-Qaeda brand as a terrorist flag of convenience to hype up the fear factor of the bullying, thuggish behaviour that they inflict on the Afghan people. We are of course, there to support the Afghan Government in bringing security to their people and communities. More importantly, some would say, considering the price that we are paying in blood and money, we are there in the interests of our own security, as the Minister said so clearly in his opening speech.
	We have been in Helmand as part of NATO/ISAF strategy to support the Afghan Government only since 2005. We often think that it is longer because there has been action in Afghanistan for longer, but it has only come into Helmand for a shorter time. Dealing with the issue there means less trouble on our doorstep. It is remarkable that the country is making some progress. It may be frustratingly slow and halting, but we forget the starting point at our peril: some of the deepest poverty and highest rates of infant mortality in the world, a space in which al-Qaeda camps trained in the region of 50,000some say 70,000 plusterrorists; the twisted roots of the 9/11 attack on the twin towers; and a state governed by religious zealots, the Taliban, who let all that happen. For the first time, I heard there of the idea of reducing the dependence on the poppy crop through a sensible, phased approach, which, given time, I thought might just work. Both doing that and creating a safe enough space for the elections this year need to come together to secure the right direction of travel. What we heard was measured and realistic, stated in a fair, low and sombre key, confident but not gung-ho and giving a strong impression that there is a very strong sense of pulling in the same directioncivilians as well as service personnel now, both with good morale.
	I kept coming across naval personnel in all sorts of roles, from cooks to drivers to administrative officers, some in their usual day job roles but so many doing quite different things from the usual. That is unsurprising, as this is the biggest land deployment of naval personnel for a long time. The visit gave me a strong sense of commitment to a really difficult task, for which our service personnel deserve to be better appreciated. As a community, we will certainly be doing that in Plymouth when they come back, soon. Some are already back, of course: medics tend to serve shorter but more frequent deployments. In April there will be a major eventa march pastso that we can all come together to mark our respect for what they have been doing. There will be quite a few events leading up to the first armed forces day, when we will be building on the remarkable range of events put together by the city council and the federation of service organisations.
	The understanding of what personnel are doing is important to their families, who are looking forward to the homecomingthe end of the deployment. Sadly, as the Minister said in his opening speech, some will not be returning. There has been a very high level not only of deaths but of casualties because of the intense nature of some of the fighting. I was particularly pleased with the progress he reported on the implementation of the service personnel Command Paper, particularly in the long-overdue changes to the compensation scheme.
	Some remarkable veterans have been returning from deployment via Plymouth. Some have been featured nationally. Ben McBean and Mark Ormrod come to mind. One lost two limbs, the other three, and yet when I rang the other day to inquire after one of them, I was told he had gone skiing. They are remarkable people, doing a remarkable job for us.
	I shall draw my remarks to a conclusion by focusing on one of the small things that can make a difference. We heard when overseas that small things matter, and that it is important that they are not neglected. The problem to which I wish to draw attention does not directly relate to the Afghan deployment; I heard about it from a senior serving officer who serves in my constituency. I have mentioned it in debate and in continuing correspondence, but I do not think that the Department properly appreciates the problem. It is being treated as an equality issuewhich it certainly is.
	The problem is that when Marines approach retirement age, they need to have two years' service ahead of them in order to apply for senior tri-service positions, so from their early 50s they cannot be considered for such positions. That cannot be in the interests of the armed forces, let alone fair. If it is truly impossible to bring the retirement ages into line earlierI know there is a long-term plan to do soperhaps the alternative is to bring some flexibility to the two-year rule. Obviously, junior positions in the Royal Marines lean towards young, active people, but I see no reason why among senior appointments a Royal Marine officer who is enthusiastic and experienced cannot be placed on an equal footing with his tri-service counterparts.
	The armed forces have been working incredibly hard on our behalf. As draw-down from Iraq takes place, the opportunity finally to implement programmes of recovery and recuperation, which need to be well planned, must be fully taken, not just to restore the harmony guidelines so that families feel under less pressure, but so that the training that makes our armed forces world class can be restored and the service personnel can remain world class today, tomorrow and in future years.

Neil Gerrard: That was a useful intervention. It makes the point that things have improved, although there are still problems. One problem among the homeless people interviewed was that some of those who had not been on active service in a war zone did not really regard themselves as veterans; they somehow thought that they might not be as entitled to the same help as someone who had.
	The question of ex-services personnel in prison was mentioned earlier. The National Association of Probation Officers did some work on the issue fairly recently. It got case histories from about 22 probation areas, and they showed a significant problem. The prison in-reach projectagain, sponsored by the Ministry of Defenceis doing a scoping survey at the moment. In one small pilot study in Dartmoor, more than 16 per cent. of the people surveyed had undertaken military service, although other surveys have come up with rather lower figures.
	The NAPO survey made it clear that in all those probation areas, probation officers were reporting that they were dealing with ex-services personnel. Furthermore, in their view, the majority of such people with whom they were dealing had suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and there had been no real attempt to identify the problemeither when those people were discharged from the services or when they were arrested and charged. The other point that came out clearly has already been referred to: a very high proportion of those people had been involved in heavy drinking or drug taking at some point.
	Some good little projects are starting. Staff at Everthorpe prison have put together a pack that deals specifically with ex-forces personnel, and work on Army welfare is going on in North Yorkshire. There are examples of good practice, but there are also gaps in our knowledge: we know that the problem is there, but we do not know its precise scale. I hope that the Minister acceptsI think that the Ministry of Defence acceptsthat we need to look into this problem and put more information together. If there have been successes in dealing with people becoming homeless, we should look at how that can be transferred into helping them not to end up in prison.
	My second point, on which I may not get the same support from the Minister that I hope to get on my first, concerns recruitment, specifically the ages at which people are recruited. I would not dispute that a career in the armed forces can offer young people real opportunities, and I have no problems with young people seeing soldiers; the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) talked about soldiers going into schools. However, we must face the fact that many non-officer recruits into the Army are people with relatively low educational attainment living in poor communities and that a significant number go into the Army as a last resort. I see the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) shaking his head, but a survey carried out in 2004 suggested that up to 40 per cent. of Army recruits were doing it because they could not find anything else that they wanted to do.
	Irrespective of that, about a quarter of all recruits in 2007 and 2008 were aged under 18. We are unusual among members of the European Union in recruiting people into the Army at the age of 16; most countries do not do that. Yet when we recruit people under the age of 18, the regulations mean that they are signing up for a longer period than someone who joins at the age of 18. We have a ruleit had been lifted and was then brought back in regulations that came into force in August last yearthat requires young people to serve for a minimum of four years beyond their 18th birthday. Somebody who signs up when they are 18 could sign up for four years, but if they sign up at 16 or 17, they are signing up to serve for four years beyond their 18th birthday. I wonder how that will sit with our debates on the Equality Bill later in this Session. In the first six months, there is an absolute right to discharge whereby someone who is unhappy can choose to leave voluntarily without a problem, but after that it is discretionary. We should consider moving to an age limit of 17, or at least enabling people to leave at any point before they are 18.

Joan Humble: It is a privilege to speak in this debate and to follow the considered contribution of the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot).
	My right hon. Friend the Minister rightly reminded us of the debt we owe those who serve in our armed forces and of their excellent work. I have met men and women stationed at Weeton barracks near Blackpool and learned of their experiences in Sierra Leone. I have spoken to soldiers at Fulwood barracks in Preston and members of the Territorial Army at Kimberley barracks in Preston, who have been to Iraq and Afghanistan. They are proud of what they do, and we should be proud of them. That is why I am so pleased that we are holding this debate.
	I applaud the Government's commitment to members of the armed services, service families and veterans, which has transformed the debate. The Government have created structures that reflect and, year after year, build on our support for the services.
	Today is my first opportunity to congratulate formally the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), on his appointment as Minister with responsibility for veterans. I am being nice to him now because I will ask him some detailed questions later. He brings with him a well- deserved reputation for a no-nonsense approach to good governance of the armed services. On the Defence Committee, he pursued duty of care issues with determination. I am sure that my hon. Friend acknowledges the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), who spearheaded the cause of fair and proper treatment of veterans.
	As chair of the all-party group on Army deaths, I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary and his predecessor. They have dealt with bereaved families with courtesy and respect, whether the deaths occurred in barracks at Deepcut, Catterick or overseas. My hon. Friend has also attended meetings of the new all-party group on veterans, of which I am an officer, and has spoken again to the people who attended about the importance of making progress on veterans' issues.
	Since we last considered such issues in detail, the Command Paper on support for service personnel, families and veterans has begun to produce change. We have a framework for better recognition of the armed forces and opportunities to show support. The national armed forces memorial and national armed forces day on 27 June supplement remembrance events in November. We have begun to move to a new system of military justice under the Armed Forces Act 2006. The appointment of a Service Complaints Commissioner is an important step towards independent oversight. The conduct of service personnel and the quality of their leadership are important to the reputation of the armed services. Today's armed forces must be effective in war and in peace.
	I want to concentrate my remaining remarks on the theme of independent oversight, but first, I would like to record my appreciation of Dr. Susan Atkins, the first Service Complaints Commissioner. She has met the all-party parliamentary group on Army deaths twice, and she has listened attentively to the concerns of bereaved Army families. Within her powers, she has done what she could, and I look forward to reading and discussing her first annual report. However, her powers are not as extensive as I, or the Defence Select Committee in its reports on duty of care, wanted them to be. Nor are they as extensive as bereaved families want them to be.
	I therefore want to ask the Minister to look into the restriction on the power of the Service Complaints Commissioner to receive a complaint relating to the death of a soldier or its subsequent investigation. The commissioner has been advised that complaints relating to these matters are ultra vires on the ground that the deceased is no longer a serving member of the armed services. When we discussed this matter during the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2006, I do not think any of us understood that that would be an issue, and I do not believe that that was the intention of Parliament. May I ask the Minister to address the problem?
	I want to say a few words about the press. Although there is seen to be a lack of effective oversight, our media get actively involved. Newspapers produce a regular commentary on matters such as the ill-treatment of trainees or detainees, shortages of equipment, the hardships of veterans and the failure to provide medical care for casualties of war. I should also like to mention The Undercover Soldier, which was broadcast in September by the BBC. The documentary focused on disturbing allegations of ill-treatment of soldiers in training, and of casual racism at Catterick barracks. Those allegations have led to a military police investigation. I know that in recent years there have been many improvements in how the staff in our training establishments behave, and in the kind of training that is offered to young trainees. Sadly, however, we are still seeing allegations such as those shown in the The Undercover Soldier programme. We are also seeing the theatre getting involved. I will not list all the plays that have been produced about the deaths at Deepcut, but many of them have won theatrical prizes for the way they have portrayed what were tragedies for those young people and are still tragedies for the families involved.
	I shall ask several detailed questions about structures for independent oversight. First, the Adjutant-General established a number of independent advisory panels in 2006, in order
	to exchange information, provide feedback and assist in identifying possible areas for improvement across the training estate.
	Such a proposal stopped well short of that advocated by the Deepcut  Beyond families group for the establishment of a lay visitors' scheme, in which Army mums and dads could enter training establishments and see the behaviour of the trainees. What assessment has the Minister made of the independent advisory panel scheme? How many panels have been established? Who sees their reports? Service families complain to me that external involvement in the panels is restricted to what they call local bigwigs. What outreach will the Minister undertake to involve ordinary families, particularly those bereaved by deaths in barracks?
	Secondly, there has been much debate on the issue of an armed forces federation. Other countries have self-organised membership groups to represent the interests of serving soldiers and their families. I have been told by senior Army officers that such an arrangement would undermine the chain of command. That seems to be their regular response to many of the issues that bereaved families, and the families of serving soldiers, raise. Will my hon. Friend look into whether there is a way of pursuing such a proposal?
	Thirdly, in response to public concerns over the deaths in Deepcut barracks, the Secretary of State asked the adult learning inspectorate to oversee the regime and quality of Army training. That role has subsequently passed to Ofsted. What plans does the Minister have to provide for the continued monitoring of training? Will he consider tasking such a body to undertake studies in areas such as race awareness?
	Fourthly, the Deepcut  Beyond families group has suggested the establishment of an office of Her Majesty's inspector of the armed forcesalong the same lines as Her Majesty's inspectors for the police and the prison services. Such an inspector would be outside the chain of command and would be charged with a duty to report directly to Parliament. He could look into the sorts of issues raised by service families and by the families of soldiers who have died. Will the Minister give further consideration to that proposal?
	Fifthly, we come to whistleblowers. In workplaces up and down the country, employees routinely do a public service by disclosing workplace malpractice, and the Government have put in place laws to encourage whistleblowers in the public interest so that whistleblowers know they cannot be victimised if they raise issues of malpractice in the workplace. Again, the military traditionally argues that whistleblowers undermine the chain of command. I am not so nave as to deny that comradeship, obeying orders and having strict discipline are crucial in the Army, but, sadly, we do have occasional incidentsthey are not widespreadof things happening that should not happen. With modern information and communications technology, anyone can use a mobile phone to take photos and then put them on a website. Will the Minister look further into protecting genuine whistleblowers who have real concerns? I would expect him to act against those behaving in either a frivolous or dangerous way, but if the cases are genuine, will he look into them further?
	Sixthly, on human rights, it is important that soldiers are aware of their right to protection against bullying and ill-treatment. In the context of peacekeeping missions overseas, it is also important that they have an understanding of the areas they are going to. At my request, the Minister placed the curriculum and background notes for such training in the Library of the House, but I have to say that they are pretty meagre, with just two pages and only half a page of writing respectively. Will he think about entering into a dialogue with the Equality and Human Rights Commission to review these teaching materials?
	SeventhlyI shall be brief, as I spoke in the debate on the Coroners and Justice Bill earlier this weekanother important issue not raised so far today is that of testimony given at services inquiries. It may not be admissible before a coroner's inquest and may not be disclosed to the jury. Will the Minister look into that issue?
	We need to be reassured that our armed forces personnel have opportunities to make complaints and get them addressed if they are genuine. We also need to ensure that we have independent oversight of whatever system of complaints is put into effect. That will reassure existing armed forces personnel while also reassuring their families. I hope that it will also lead to improved recruitment and an improved career for our armed forces personnel.

Gerald Howarth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention, because I have raised the issue before, and it has not been addressed by Ministers. If the news has been mentioned on the BBC, the House is entitled to be informed. I hope that the Minister will deal with that when he winds up.
	The latest performance report by the Ministry of Defence shows that there are serious shortages across the board. Let me list one or two. There are just three Royal Navy Harrier instructors, against a requirement of seven. There is a 38 per cent. shortage of Merlin helicopter pilots, and there are just 95 Army bomb disposal corporals and sergeants, against a requirement of 222a 57 per cent. shortfall. The RAF is short of 88 loadmasters, a trade critical to operations in the fields. We also know that only 85 per cent. of the armed forces are fully available and fit; 15 per cent. are not fit. The Government have a target of 90 per cent., and it is clearly not being met. My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) drew attention to that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury drew attention to the harmony guidelines. The Royal Logistic Corps has a 15-month average tour interval, against a target of 24 months. That cannot be sustained. Furthermore, there is an outflow of personnel. We now know that in the year ending 1 September last year, the voluntary outflow rate of RAF officers was 3 per cent., against a long-term sustainable rate of 2.5 per cent. The figure for other RAF ranks is 5.8 per cent., against a sustainable rate of 4 per cent. Clearly, if that trend continues, there will be serious consequences for the maintenance of capability. In the first six months of last year, there was a net outflow of something like 1,250 peopleoverwhelmingly, that means 12,200 experienced people being replaced by 10,960 rookies.
	The Prime Minister is falling over himself to ingratiate himself with the new US President, so who can doubt that he will press service chiefs to accede to any request from the United States for more troops in Afghanistan? I understand that one battlegroup is all that can be afforded; Ministers need to tell us how many troops they are prepared to contribute. The truth is that our armed forces are overstretched. They have received much better equipment in the form of improved armoured vehicles, as has been mentioned, but the Snatch Land Rover remains in operation, which causes great concern for the safety and security of our armed forces, and we were told just before Christmas that a whole series of programmes were to be cut, curtailed, reduced or scrapped altogether. That is not at all satisfactory. If the Government want our armed forces to do what they are being asked to do, the Government have to back them with resources; otherwise they will have failed our armed forces.
	I will conclude on a positive note, by paying tribute to the British public, whom I do think support our armed forces. The welcome home parades have been mentioned. I salute Wootton Bassett for what it has done, and I salute my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire for what he has done as chairman of the all-party Army group. The nation owes a huge debt of gratitude to our armed forces, and the more that we can show that we are understanding of their commitment and the sacrifice that they are making on behalf of all of us in this country, the better we will be able to impress on them that we really are concerned about them and value them, and will do much more than we are doing to ensure that they get a fair deal from the Government of this country, whoever is in power.

Meg Hillier: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) for raising this subject, and for her eloquent and well-researched speech. She has a strong track record on this issue, as she has demonstrated today. I welcome this opportunity to set out how the Government are responding to some of the issues that she has raised. I will not repeat all the statistics that she highlighted. Suffice it to say that we all know that domestic violence is a devastating crime that impacts on all our communities, and it is important that we address all the points that she has made.
	Organisations that deal with domestic violence have played a critical role, and we owe them a significant debt of gratitude. My hon. Friend mentioned Southall Black Sisters, and there are others that have also worked with those suffering domestic violence in the black, Asian and minority ethnic communities.
	Over the last couple of years, we have been working to ensure that our centrally driven initiatives also join up at regional and local level. We may have to agree to differ at this point, although we are always keen in government to listen to how things are working on the ground. I do not believe that we can fix everything through Whitehall central funding and it has been a drive in government to devolve funding down to a local level so that decisions about funding particular services are made at that local level. It should be more responsive because the groups are dealt with much more directly. Some of the groups dealing with domestic violence issues, particularly in these communities, are quite small, and it is not always easy necessarily to get it right from Whitehall.
	This drive to the local level has been important across government and across a number of Departments that deal with these issues. It is important to carry on with that, but as I said, we are always keen to learn more about how the excluded groups that my hon. Friend has highlighted are accessing services. We continue to talk with her, the all-party group and other groups involved about how that can be done more effectively.
	One supporting strand of funding is through the Supporting People programme, which was launched in 2003. The aim is to create a coherent funding and policy context for the provision of housing-related support to the most vulnerable. Local authorities rather than central Government determine how they focus that funding, based on the needs and priorities they have identified in their five-year strategies. I recently visited the Nia project in my constituency last week and I know that it is effectively using a lot of that Supporting People money. I am not unaware of some of the challenges that that particular funding stream presents, but I think it is right that it is done at the local level.
	We have evidence from local authorities concerning their investment of Supporting People funding in domestic violence cases: the evidence is positive. Local authorities are spending more of their funding on domestic violence services. A rise from 61.6 million in 2006-07 to 64.5 million in 2008 delivered increased capacity for this vulnerable groupfrom 8,660 units of support in 2006-07 to 9,520 in 2007-08. The proportion of black and ethnic minority women who accessed housing-related support has increased from 26.8 per cent. in 2003-04 to 28.9 per cent. in 2007. One might say that that is a modest increase, but I think that is good progress in a year. We need to make sure that all those who need the services are accessing them. Last year, more than 6,000 women were successfully supported to achieve greater control, choice and involvement in their community. A number of them were also supported with their mental health problems.
	The Nia project and the Southall Black Sisters are two examples of groups that do valuable work in this area, and there are countless others. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Sharma) raised the issue of increasing the Southall Black Sisters' funding. The Home Office has recently provided 20,000 in order to strengthen its performance management arrangements, so that it can provide national data on black and ethnic minority victims of domestic violence. The Home Office continues to work with the Black Sisters on a step-by-step basis to provide advice on domestic violence. We recognise the benefits.

Meg Hillier: In a couple of sentences, my hon. Friend has encapsulated the challenges of dealing with what are often small groups, although the Southall Black Sisters are well established. He is right to focus on the distance between Whitehall and those groups and to highlight the key role that local authorities play. I will certainly ensure that Ministers in the Department for Communities and Local Government are aware of my hon. Friend's concerns in that direction. It is for them to take up these issues as well as for the Home Office to deal with them overall, working with other colleagues in government to promote issues around domestic violence and provide the solutions that we are trying to draw up.
	I should say that we make some central allocations of funding. For example, we are putting nearly 1 million into a matrix of helplines to support a range of victims. It is sensible for some money to come from central Government, but we also need to ensure that we allow for the responsiveness that local funding can, at its best, provide. Where there are problems, we are monitoring them by examining the data of the groups accessing these services and by making other evaluations.
	We know that we need to do more to ensure that victims of domestic violence in black and minority ethnic communities also benefit from interventions. Our delivery plan for 2008-09 specifically includes activity to support those groups, and that work will continue into 2009-10.
	Let me give some examples. The Department for Communities and Local Government has commissioned three pieces of homelessness and domestic violence research. Each of those projects will involve consideration of the needs of specific groups, including black and minority ethnic households. We want to understand better what provision is out there, and whether it meets current need. There will be a report late in 2009. I have already asked officials in the DCLG to ensure that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North is kept informed and updated on the progress of the research, and will alert Ministers in the Department as well. I think it important for her expertise to be used.
	My hon. Friend raised the issue of foreign-born wives and those with uncertain immigration status. That issue is important to me, as an immigration Minister. We have been working with the statutory and voluntary sectors to find ways in which to support victims with no recourse to public funds. We are also discussing one of the points that my hon. Friend raised with the Association of Chief Police Officers: we are trying to establish whether ACPO can assist in the process of obtaining formal documents such as passports for women applying for indefinite leave to remain on grounds of domestic violence. We need to obtain the evidence. We need a reasonable threshold, but not a bar that will make it too difficult for women in the circumstances described so eloquently and movingly by my hon. Friend to gain such status.
	We believe that the scheme that we announced in March last year will strengthen the way in which domestic violence cases are considered, enabling the vulnerable victims described by my hon. Friend to gain access to additional support. We have been working closely with the No Recourse to Public Funds network and other stakeholders on the details of the scheme. It has taken longer than it should have, but we must get it right. The delay is frustrating for all of us who are involved, but it is important for us to launch a scheme that it is effective, rather than launching a scheme for the sake of meeting a deadline.
	About 500 women try to escape from abusive partners each year, but cannot gain access to emergency housing or other benefits because of their immigration status. That affects not just those women but their children, and a wider network of people. We have been working to try to deal with it. I am partly responsible for some of the work of the UK Border Agency. The DCLG has been working with the agency and other groups, including a network of local authorities, to explore better solutions.
	As I said earlier, we are developing a scheme that will provide a contribution to the housing and living costs of people who are granted indefinite leave to remain as the spouse or partner of a United Kingdom national, but who are then subject to domestic violence within their two-year probationary period. I should be happy to discuss that and some of the surrounding issues with my hon. Friend on another occasion, because we need to get it right.
	Although negotiations are still in progress, it is expected that a one-off lump sum will be paid by the UK Border Agency to the supporting organisation. That is one of the reasons for the complications: a great many organisations are involved, and it is important for us to give Government moneytaxpayers' moneyto organisations that we know to have a good track record.
	Further work is being done. Unfortunately not enough time is available for me to describe all of it, but it is worth mentioning our specialist domestic violence courts, independent domestic violence advisers and multi-agency risk assessment conferences, all of which are key to supporting victims of domestic violence. We are collecting ethnicity data to ensure that those services are reaching all communities. At each step, we are trying to monitor the way in which all services meet the needs of some of the groups mentioned by my hon. Friend. The Government have been working with voluntary organisations, particularly through the DCLG, to develop a step-by-step guide for women in black and minority ethnic communities who are victims. Unfortunately it too has been delayed, but we hope to publish it in the spring.
	The Government are engaged in the issue with a variety of stakeholders. I know that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members have contributed. On Tuesday 3 February, there will be a meeting of stakeholders with experience in this area.
	We know there is still more for us to do. The Home Secretary has already announced that there will be a public consultation on a violence against women strategy. I encourage all organisations and communities to participate. I hope that between us my hon. Friend and I, along with other hon. Membersalthough none are present nowcan encourage all Members to urge their local organisations to contribute. It is important for contributions to be made throughout the United Kingdom. I should be happy to work with the all-party group on domestic violence in helping to disseminate information about the consultation, and to ensure that proper contributions are made to inform the development of the strategy so that we can tackle the issues raised by my hon. Friend.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.